It was nearly three years ago, unbelievably, during the Confirmation Hearing for Ketanji Brown Jackson to the Supreme Court, that Senator Marsha Blackburn (Republican of the Volunteer State of Tennessee) asked the nominee to provide a definition of a woman. Brown Jackson said she was unable because she wasn’t a biologist. Looking at recent examples of their choices, it seems Democrats cannot define what a man is either.

We all sniggered that Ketanji Brown Jackson was unable to define a woman, especially since we all assume she is one. Adult Human Female. But, it is apparently indefinable, especially for a Harvard Juris Doctor:

Here’s a video of Ketanji Brown Jackson not being able to define a “man and woman” during her SCOTUS confirmation hearing.

Lisa Murkowski voted YES for her.

Lisa Murkowski is voting NO for Patriot Pete Hegseth.

Traitor.
pic.twitter.com/4LQhS2KjJi

— C3 (@C_3C_3) January 24, 2025

A manly man with actual real masculine type characteristics are anathema to Democrats. If you are astute, you noticed it with Hillary Clinton and her choice of Tim Kaine as a running mate in the 2016 Presidential Race. Hillary chose Kaine, because his lack of manliness would make her look more Presidential. At least that was her thinking. We saw the same thing with Kamala Harris choosing Tim Walz as a running mate and Doug Emhoff as a husband.
Yesterday, our Nina wrote about “David Hogg Elected As DNC Vice Chair To Bring In The Gen Z Masculine Vote”. That noodle-armed girly man can’t bring in the mail let alone the males. Listen to this:

Nope, cannot bring in the mail. The young’uns are looking for something/someone who looks strong and reliable. From the Washington Examiner:

Explanations are aplenty for the Democratic Party’s precipitous decline in popularity. Many on the Left have blamed “messaging,” conveniently enough, as if their deeply unpopular ideas would suddenly turn popular if they were “messaged” correctly. Others have criticized the party’s lack of commitment to its core ideas — or to any ideas at all. Still more have accused the party of being overly committed to too many preposterous ideas of the cultural variety.

But these speculations gloss over the Democratic Party’s most fundamental problem: Its brand has become toxic to men. According to the Quinnipiac poll, a staggering 67% of men hold an unfavorable view of the Democratic Party, while only 22% approve.

A party that repels 2 in 3 men is not viable. For Democrats to regain their national influence, they must reflect on why men of every color, class, and creed have abandoned them.

NY Governor Kathy Hochul helped lead the screaming hysteria when Trump had his Madison Square Garden rally. God-fearing, hardworking, family-loving men of all brands, colors and sexual orientations don’t like being called Nazis. Calling all men oppressors while you bank on people like Hogg and Walz repels men and the women and men who love them.

A good place to begin would be by addressing the implicit assumption in Democratic circles that men are inherently part of an “oppressor” class that is privileged above their biological counterparts. This curious interpretation of sex relations reduces men and women to mere interest groups locked in a struggle for power, not as fundamentally complementary and cooperative. This not only defies the lived experience of untold generations who witnessed mothers and fathers lovingly sharing the burdens of life, but this reductivist view drives men away from the Democratic Party in droves. If nothing else, demonizing, shaming, and lecturing half of the electorate is an abysmal political strategy.

Until the 50’s and 60’s, rural life required that men and women work as partners. And even as the partners of ball-busting girl bosses, these men are spectacularly unattractive:

Democrats might also consider the type of men they spotlight as exemplars of the sex. The monthslong effort to cast former second gentleman Doug Emhoff as embodying the “new masculinity” because of his supportive role in his marriage to former Vice President Kamala Harris is a prime example of how to choose the wrong pitchman.

Not that Kamala came off as ball-busting or Dougie came off as supportive. They both came off as “Lost in Space”.

Not all manly men can crack walnuts with their biceps. They can be Marco Rubio types, Donald Trump types, J.D. Vance types or Elon Musk types. Those are four very different type men. They are men. Different but you can only define them as men. They can be partners in everything in life.

If Democrats cannot define a man as anything but subservient twits, they will continue to turn men and women off. Here is hoping they don’t figure it out, bless their hearts.

Featured Image: Nathan Mac/Wikimedia Commons.org/cropped/Creative Commons 2.0/Thomas J. O’Halloran/Wikimedia Commons.org/cropped/Public Domain